What other type of evidence are you talking about? Rooster's babbling over on GBB? After more than 12 years on these forums I can tell you when anecdotal info conflicts with official info and general trends, the anecdotal info has been proven wrong pretty much every time.NickleCity wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:59 pmIs it nonsense that I recognize more than one type of knowledge about a subect for example imperical and a priori. There is more than one type of reasoning for example inductive versus deductive. I suggest a quick study of epistemology—the study of the theories of knowledge, the types of knowledge and theories on how we know before you make an accusation that someone is nonsensical. I find it is better to use several types of reasoning and knowledge collection. Your emphasis on empirical/credentialed expert only knowledge may create defecits in your overall understanding. You should also bear in mind that this type of thinking is heavily conditioned about a modern understanding of the world and knowledge. Postmodern thinkers are coming to the forefront today as they point out the blind spots in modernism. That being said these thinkers must not react to strongly against modernism or the pendulum will swing
too far the other way and they will not recognize their own blind spots in knowledge and understanding.
So again please don’t accuse my way of thinking as nonsense. I like to balance the types of knowledge and reasoning I use to arrive at an opinion. If I used only credentialed experts I’d be right there with Sonny, you and others. I make no excuse for the fact that I listen to what some on this forum demean as “street talk.” However, I weigh this with the opinion experts and my knowledge and relationships with those to whom I speak as I consider the veracity of what is being said. I make no excuse that I use dudctive reasoning along side inductive. Just because I do not employ your method exclusively does not make mine nonsense! In my humble opinion their strength and weekness to every method of knowing.
Is it nonsense that the weight I put on the the things I’ve heard from people I know and the amount of corroboration from different people surpassed your so called experts. Well, it could be... and regularly questioned the weight I applied — I thank forums like this and users like you who constantly challenged me. There were points I had serious doubts Buffalo was active.
However, it is possible you have not put enough weight on these other types of evidences. Who knows? Time will tell. Right now it appears the experts (Edwards & Canadian LE) are catching up to the street talk am hearing.
Except that was largely a Canadian bust with some Buffalo members involved. So how much the case is attributable to Buffalo is questionable.About emperical evidence you said the last Buffalo Mob case was 1996 — Well I disagree it was November 2018. I’d say several Canadian reporters and Dept. Justice (Eastern District of NY or is it Southern —can’t remember) disagree too as they name members of the Todaro Crime Family as part of the big case and arrests.
LIUNA Local 210 was the family's power base for years and it being put under oversight was incomparably more significant. In fact, that was the turning point where the feds changed their view of the Buffalo LCN.
I think you're reaching here. And even if Herbeck wrote the whole article misrepresenting people (a rather strange assertion), the opinion of the FBI about the Buffalo mob was already known anyway. In other words, the article told us what we (well at least some of us) already knew.As far as the veracity of Herbeck saying the Mob is all but dead in WNY. I don’t weigh him very high. Why? He misrepresented Ron Fino. Being a closed forum I will say we have recently PM’d and he definitely believes Buffalo is active. He hasn’t changed his position since he wrote the Buffalo News in 2012 after thei article about him being the inside guy. Don’t believe I’ve ones him? Do a google search and you will find a video of him indicating Buffalo is active and showing his continuity of thought on the topic — this video interview takes place after the March Herbeck piece. Herbeck misrepresenting Ron... if he will do that, he could misrepresent the FBI field office in Buffalo.
When he says "the Buffalo Mob," to what is he referring? Some members and associates still active in crime? An organization with a functioning hierarchy of an administration, captains, and soldiers? Who is on this hierarchy presently?It is interesting how Edwards put it on his blog: The Buffalo Mob is not dead, despite recent media reports. What media report do you think he is referencing? Money is on the Herbeck piece. Sounds like a shot over the bow to me...
